This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

How about General George Washington famously ordering his troops to give refuge to hundreds of surrendering Hessian soldiers. "Treat them with humanity?"

George Washington owned slaves, too.

But, anyway, the Hessians were uniformed soldiers and as uniformed soldiers rated protections under the rules of war, at the time.

Washington also hanged Major John Andre' without a trial for spying.

Last edited by apdst; 11-11-10 at 10:00 PM.

Originally Posted by americanwoman

So there is absolutely no evidence this woman, whom you called a slut, did this but you are ready to take someone's word as evidence. Guess you don't think witch hunts have to end when it's going after the certain people.

It wasn't my argument that he was. Wasn't even considering the point. Was referring to your defense of him. But considering there's no one agreed-upon definition of "terrorism," let's look at what the UN convention considers terrorism:

It's fairly clear what he did fits.

Now, let's look at the proposed exceptions:

He doesn't fall under any of those.

Let's look at the further proposed exceptions by the Islamic Conference:

Doesn't fall under any of those, either.

I surely do. And it would include someone who, say, refers to those who ideologically differ from him as "regressives." And one who doesn't see that defending someone against the label of terrorist is indeed defending that person. You can defend someone and be right. You can defend someone who's been unjustly accused. Yet you're still defending him. And here, you defend him, and in so doing, you say he's an enemy soldier in a war rather than a terrorist. THAT characterization is INDEED "lunacy."

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Funny, you seem to think his "motivation" is "clear" when you refer to him as attacking "enemy soldiers."

Originally Posted by Harshaw

I don't "want to label him" anything. It really doesn't matter to me. But you seem hell-bent on him not being a terrorist, though you're certainly willing to attribute to him other things which require the same kind of mind-reading. Like "treason."

Why does it matter to you so much that he is or isn't a terrorist?

What evidence is there that he was affirmatively waging war against the United States or providing aid and comfort to her enemies? That is the definition of "treason."

Originally Posted by Harshaw

I'm not the one insisting -- INSISTING -- he is or isn't something.

Weak. He could have, as you point out, just snapped. That wouldn't be treason. Treason requires intent. Yet you have no problem saying it's treason.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

I never claimed he was or wasn't anything. It's you who reached affirmative conclusions and even got into a snit over it. It's you who claimed to know his mind, both in saying that he was engaged in combat against "enemy soldiers" and that he committed "treason." I did nothing of the kind.

Actually, as you can see, you were the one "insisting" he is a terrorist and making a big snit of it. You even went to the trouble of looking up the UN convention just so you could label him as as such.

It is important what the Fort Hood shooter is labeled. Because if he were labeled a terrorist then the Fort Hood shooting would officially be known as the second act of terrorism on US soil since 9/11 and Hasan could be charged under US anti-terrorism laws and tried in Federal Court. But the military wants jurisdiction over the trial and so he is just being charged with multiple murders instead of an act of terrorism. But either way, he would still get the death penalty.

Re: George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Originally Posted by FederalRepublic

Why bother asking them any questions at all? If they expect to be asked questions, and giving them what they expect only makes them feel confident and comfortable, why not just give them a box of chocolates and send them on their way?

Because there are techniques that work quite well, much better than torture. I know you're silliness means something to you, but it isn't an arugment. If torture has the exact same results (it doesn't, it fairs worse), why torture?

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

I'm not naive enough to think that its not possible lives has been saved through torture but...

What about the innocents who get tortured in this manner?

They can recover from this technique, and go on to live their lives. I do believe, however, that there can be psychological damage that might take years to overcome.

I really can't see why this method of torture would need to be used. Maybe it was necessary to rush to thwart future plots that seemed imminent. We probably will never know all the details unless it was all recorded in some way.

I've seen Bush interviewed because of his book, and he doesn't really divulge a lot of info. Maybe it's in the book.

Bush did say that a lot of things don't bother him about how negatively he's been perceived, so in that respect, he's not normal, or he takes a lot of Xanax. I'd say he's on something, or delusional. Maybe Laura keeps him calm.

"It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.

Re: George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Bush did say that a lot of things don't bother him about how negatively he's been perceived, so in that respect, he's not normal, or he takes a lot of Xanax. I'd say he's on something, or delusional. Maybe Laura keeps him calm.

Re: George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Originally Posted by Grant

You have problems with how you are perceived, do you Marilyn?

Most humans are bothered some. That said, most lie and say they aren't.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Isn't America great, you can say whatever you want, do whatever you want, have as little discipline as you want and there are no consequences in the liberal world.

Drugs are bad ok. I have no idea what you're saying here.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Drugs are bad ok. I have no idea what you're saying here.

Oh, you know exactly what I am saying as you are one of those that exercises their freedom of speech every day without accepting the responsibility that goes with the actions from that speech. You and so many other "experts" like you know exactly what you are doing as do I. your problem is you cannot admit who you are and who "your" President really is. Obama is all about incrementalism in his goal towards socialism as are you. On Nov. 2 obama and the socialist agenda took a hit but that is ok, you have all the time in the world.

Re: George W Bush claims UK lives 'saved by waterboarding'

Originally Posted by Conservative

Oh, you know exactly what I am saying as you are one of those that exercises their freedom of speech every day without accepting the responsibility that goes with the actions from that speech. You and so many other "experts" like you know exactly what you are doing as do I. your problem is you cannot admit who you are and who "your" President really is. Obama is all about incrementalism in his goal towards socialism as are you. On Nov. 2 obama and the socialist agenda took a hit but that is ok, you have all the time in the world.

Very interesting.

You're a constitution guy right?

Why do you say "Your" President.

Do you not accept Obama as president of the United States?

He was elected in a free and fair election. And is granted the power of president under the constitution for that reason.